DOCSLIB.ORG

How to Retire Early Making Accelerated Coal Phaseout Feasible and Just “Possible Quote on the Report/Research Topic Here

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

M OUN KY T C A I O N R I N E STIT U T How To Retire Early Making Accelerated Coal Phaseout Feasible and Just “Possible quote on the report/research topic here. Et que prorpos et, consedi dolupta spicid quam nus qui audipit verumet usdandi genima venimagni sandiat iatur? Quia volorror ad quossimet ulpa seque ab il min coraeribus aut repudis esto magnientus, sum nos ea erum es samuscimus mo quodissimus qui ute et landis aut enisque volor alitate essed molupidunt voluptat qui coressin nulparumqui rerem re pa et haria nonsedit dere voluptam vene es eum volorep eribusanim rem est, as explitas sinis essus con con praeperit quunt.” —Name of the person being quoted Authors & Acknowledgments Authors Paul Bodnar, Matthew Gray (Carbon Tracker Initiative), Tamara Grbusic, Steve Herz (Sierra Club), Amanda Lonsdale (Magnitude Global Finance), Sam Mardell, Caroline Ott, Sriya Sundaresan (Carbon Tracker Initiative), Uday Varadarajan (Rocky Mountain Institute and Stanford Sustainable Finance Initiative) * Authors listed alphabetically. All authors from Rocky Mountain Institute unless otherwise noted. Contacts Caroline Ott, [email protected] Matthew Gray, [email protected] Steve Herz, [email protected] Suggested Citation Paul Bodnar, Matthew Gray, Tamara Grbusic, Steve Herz, Amanda Lonsdale, Sam Mardell, Caroline Ott, Sriya Sundaresan, and Uday Varadarajan, How to Retire Early: Making Accelerated Coal Phaseout Feasible and Just, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2020, https://rmi.org/insight/how-to-retire-early. Images courtesy of iStock unless otherwise noted. Acknowledgments This report has benefited from the input of over 60 individuals from over 30 institutions. For a complete list of individuals who informed this report, please see the acknowledgments on pages 54 and 55. Funders The authors thank the following foundations for supporting this work: Bloomberg Philanthropies, European Climate Foundation, Flora Family Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Someland Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Yellow Chair Foundation, Bulb Foundation, and Pooled Fund on International Energy. About Us M OUN KY T C A I O N Initiative R arbon Tracker I N E STIT U T About Us Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)—an independent nonprofit founded in 1982—transforms global energy use to create a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future. It engages businesses, communities, institutions, and entrepreneurs to accelerate the adoption of market-based solutions that cost-effectively shift from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables. RMI has offices in Basalt and Boulder, Colorado; New York City; the San Francisco Bay Area; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing. The Carbon Tracker Initiative is a team of financial specialists making climate risk real in today’s capital markets. Our research to date on unburnable carbon and stranded assets has started a new debate on how to align the financial system in the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 3.5 million members and supporters. In addition to protecting every person’s right to get outdoors and access the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit www.sierraclub.org. Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1. The Economic Case for Phasing Out Coal .............................................................................................11 2. A Three-Part Approach to Finance Coal-to-Clean ............................................................................. 17 3. Financial Instruments to Speed Coal-to-Clean ...................................................................................26 4. The United States: Financial Pathways to Close Coal .....................................................................34 5. Financial Pathways to Close in Global Markets .................................................................................37 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................45 Data and Methodology ....................................................................................................................................47 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................54 Endnotes ...............................................................................................................................................................56 Executive Summary Although coal has long been viewed as the cheapest The total cost of phasing out the global coal fleet way to power the global economy, this is no longer the through efficiently structured financial solutions case. New renewable energy is now cheaper than new is already surprisingly small and shrinking quickly. coal plants virtually everywhere, even before considering Replacing uncompetitive coal with clean energy could coal’s dire health, climate, and environmental impacts. already save electricity customers around the world The cost of renewables has fallen so far that it is already $33 billion in 2020, and these annual savings rise cheaper to build new renewable energy capacity, quickly to $73 billion in 2022 and $136 billion in 2025. including battery storage, than to continue operating 39 Phasing out and replacing the remaining competitive percent of the world’s existing coal capacity.i Based on share of the global coal fleet would require $161 billion a new global analysis—by Rocky Mountain Institute, the in subsidies in 2020,ii with this figure dropping rapidly Carbon Tracker Initiative, and the Sierra Club—of nearly to $84 billion in 2022 and $29 billion in 2025 (see 2,500 coal plants, the share of uncompetitive coal plants Exhibit ES1). In other words, the theoretical net cost to worldwide will increase rapidly to 56 percent in 2022 and society of completing the coal-to-clean transition in to 78 percent in 2025. 2020 would be $128 billion, but this figure drops close to zero by 2022 and generates net financial savings of over $107 billion by 2025.iii Those savings—which already exist for many geographies—can be captured and recycled to support a just transition for workers and communities. These figures do not even account for the social and environmental benefits of reducing carbon dioxide and other coal pollutants. i This analysis defines a coal asset as “uncompetitive” if it costs more to continue to operate than the levelized cost to build and operate onshore wind or solar with four-hour storage rated at half the renewable capacity. The storage was included as a simple way to account for replacement of the capacity as well as the energy provided by a marginal existing coal plant at moderately high penetrations of variable resources. The coal costs are inclusive of any applicable carbon or emissions permits or taxes, but not of any unpriced health or environmental costs, while the renewable and storage costs include clean energy incentives. ii “Phaseout” and “retirement” are used as general terms that encompass different strategies that lead to elimination of expected coal use in the operation of a plant, including transitioning to standby/backup service with little or no (at most, seasonal) expected operation, as well as retirement and decommissioning. iii The cost to replace in a given year is the annual additional cost to customers that would result from replacement of all competitive coal assets with renewable energy and storage in that year. The total net cost in a given year is calculated by subtracting the annual cost savings from the cost to replace. For additional definitions, see the box on page 13. 6 | Rocky Mountain Institute Executive Summary Exhibit ES1 Cost Competitiveness of Existing Coal vs. New Renewables and Storage Cost Competitiveness of Existing Coal vs. New Renewables Plus Storage WORLD 2020 WORLD 2025 1,687 GW (78%) 1,321 GW Competitive (61%) Uncompetitive Competitive Uncompetitive 830 GW (39%) 476 GW Annual Net Cost Annual Net Savings (22%) $128 billion $107 billion $161B $33B $29B $136B Cost to Replace Competitive Coal Savings to Replace Uncompetitive Coal Cost to Replace Competitive Coal Savings to Replace Uncompetitive Coal CHINA 2020 2025 INDIA 2020 2025 1074 GW 234 GW 250 GW (94%) (83%) (85%) 663 GW 479 GW (58%) (42%) 48 GW 45 GW 73 GW (17%) (15%) (6%) $53B $12B $2B $86B $23B $2B $2B $17B Annual Net Cost Annual Net Savings Annual Net Cost Annual Net Savings $41 billion $84 billion $21 billion $15 billion US 2020 2025 EU 2020 2025 187 GW 176 GW 113 GW 113 GW (79%) (83%) (81%) (100%) 49 GW 35 GW 27 GW (21%) (17%) (19%) $1B $10B $1B $9B $1B $10B $0B $21B Annual Net Savings Annual Net Savings Annual Net Savings Annual Net Savings $9 billion $8 billion $9 billion $21 billion Source: RMI How to Retire Early | 7 Executive Summary However, coal phaseout hasn’t kept pace with eroding and investors would have the opportunity to replace economics, and the slow pace of transition is costing coal returns with clean returns
Recommended publications
  • 2020: the Climate Turning Point, Either in Whole Or in Part, from the Identification of Six Milestones to Guidance on Analysis of the Milestone Targets

    2020: the Climate Turning Point, Either in Whole Or in Part, from the Identification of Six Milestones to Guidance on Analysis of the Milestone Targets

    analysis by: CLIMATE ACTION TRACKER reviews by: 1 Acknowledgements Preface authors Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: Stefan Rahmstorf and Anders Levermann Report writers Independent Policy Analyst and Writer: Chloe Revill and Victoria Harris Analytical contributors Carbon Tracker: James Leaton Climate Action Tracker: Michiel Schaeffer, Andrzej Ancygier, Bill Hare, Niklas Roaming , Paola Parra, Delphine Deryng, Mahlet Melkie, and Claire Fyson (Climate Analytics); Niklas Höhne, Sebastian Sterl, and Hanna Fekete (New Climate Institute); Yvonne Deng, Kornelis Blok, and Carsten Petersdorff (Ecofys, a Navigant company) Yale University: Angel Hsu, Amy Weinfurter, and Carlin Rosengarten Special thank you to the additional organizations and individuals who provided input or reviewed the analysis for 2020: The Climate Turning Point, either in whole or in part, from the identification of six milestones to guidance on analysis of the milestone targets. Organizations and individuals: Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), Conservation International (CI) with a special thank you to Shyla Raghav; International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), The New Climate Economy (NCE), Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT), Reid Detchon at the UN Foundation, SYSTEMIQ, We Mean Business (WMB), and World Resources Institute (WRI) 2 OUR SHARED MISSION FOR 2020 PREFACE: WHY GLOBAL EMISSIONS MUST PEAK BY 2020 Authored by Stefan Rahmstorf and Anders Levermann Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research In the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, the world’s nations have committed to “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”. This goal is deemed necessary to avoid incalculable risks to humanity, and it is feasible – but realistically only if global emissions peak by the year 2020 at the latest.
  • Annual Report 2019–2020

    Annual Report 2019–2020

    annual report 2019–2020 Energy Solutions for the Decisive Decade M OUN KY T C A I O N R IN S T E Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020TIT U1 04 Letter from Our CEO 08 Introducing RMI’s New Global Programs 10 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Contents. 2 Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020 Cover image courtesy of Unsplash/Cassie Matias 14 54 Amory Lovins: Making the Board of Trustees Future a Reality 22 62 Think, Do, Scale Thank You, Donors! 50 104 Financials Our Locations Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020 3 4 Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020 Letter from Our CEO There is no doubt that humanity has been dealt a difficult hand in 2020. A global pandemic and resulting economic instability have sown tremendous uncertainty for now and for the future. Record- breaking natural disasters—hurricanes, floods, and wildfires—have devastated communities resulting in deep personal suffering. Meanwhile, we have entered the decisive decade for our Earth’s climate—with just ten years to halve global emissions to meet the goals set by the Paris Agreement before we cause irreparable damage to our planet and all life it supports. In spite of these immense challenges, when I reflect on this past year I am inspired by the resilience and hope we’ve experienced at Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). This is evidenced through impact made possible by the enduring support of our donors and tenacious partnership of other NGOs, companies, cities, states, and countries working together to drive a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future.
  • Results 2020 Jan Burck, Ursula Hagen, Niklas Höhne, Leonardo Nascimento, Christoph Bals CCPI • Results 2020 Germanwatch, Newclimate Institute & Climate Action Network

    Results 2020 Jan Burck, Ursula Hagen, Niklas Höhne, Leonardo Nascimento, Christoph Bals CCPI • Results 2020 Germanwatch, Newclimate Institute & Climate Action Network

    Climate Change CCPI Performance Index Results 2020 Jan Burck, Ursula Hagen, Niklas Höhne, Leonardo Nascimento, Christoph Bals CCPI • Results 2020 Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute & Climate Action Network Imprint Germanwatch – Bonn Office Authors: Kaiserstr. 201 Jan Burck, Ursula Hagen, Niklas Höhne, D-53113 Bonn, Germany Leonardo Nascimento, Christoph Bals Ph.: +49 (0) 228 60492-0 With support of: Fax: +49 (0) 228 60492-19 Pieter van Breenvoort, Violeta Helling, Anna Wördehoff, Germanwatch – Berlin Office Gereon tho Pesch Stresemannstr. 72 Editing: D-10963 Berlin, Germany Anna Brown, Janina Longwitz Ph.: +49 (0) 30 28 88 356-0 Fax: +49 (0) 30 28 88 356-1 Maps: Violeta Helling E-mail: [email protected] www.germanwatch.org Design: Dietmar Putscher Coverphoto: shutterstock/Tupungato December 2019 Purchase Order Number: 20-2-03e NewClimate Institute – Cologne Office ISBN 978-3-943704-75-4 Clever Str. 13-15 D-50668 Cologne, Germany You can find this publication as well Ph.: +49 (0) 221 99983300 as interactive maps and tables at www.climate-change-performance-index.org NewClimate Institute – Berlin Office Schönhauser Allee 10-11 A printout of this publication can be ordered at: D-10119 Berlin, Germany www.germanwatch.org/de/17281 Ph.: +49 (0) 030 208492742 CAN Climate Action Network International Rmayl, Nahr Street, Contents Jaara Building, 4th floor P.O.Box: 14-5472 Foreword 3 Beirut, Lebanon Ph.: +961 1 447192 1. About the CCPI 4 2. Recent Developments 6 3. Overall Results CCPI 2020 8 3.1 Category Results – GHG Emissions 10 3.2 Category Results – Renewable Energy 12 3.3 Category Results – Energy Use 14 3.4 Category Results – Climate Policy 16 4.
  • The Coming Era of Peak Fossil Fuels March 2020

    The Coming Era of Peak Fossil Fuels March 2020

    Insights Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) 2020 Vision: The Coming Era of Peak Fossil Fuels March 2020 Kingsmill Bond Carlo M. Funk New Energy Strategist Head of EMEA ESG Investment Strategy Carbon Tracker Initiative State Street Global Advisors Carbon Tracker Initiative is an independent financial think tank that analyses the impact of the energy transition on capital markets and the potential investment in high-cost, carbon-intensive fossil fuels. Carbon Tracker has helped to popularise the terms “carbon bubble”, “unburnable carbon” and “stranded assets”. State Street Global Advisors has co-authored this report on the energy transition with Carbon Tracker. The original Carbon Tracker analyst note can be found here: https://carbontracker.org/reports/2020-vision-why-you- should-see-the-fossil-fuel-peak-coming/. Climate change has become the defining issue of our time. The threat of global warming driven by fossil fuel use and the dangers of inaction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are leading to a re-evaluation of how we generate and use energy. Foreword Fulfilling the Paris Agreement goal to limit the global temperature rise to 2°C or less has been recognised by practically all countries and governments around the world are committing to decarbonisation. Amid much progress, however, the US is pulling out of the Paris Agreement while China — the world’s largest carbon emitter — continues to build new coal plants. Despite some setbacks, there has been a sea-change in how we view fossil fuels, driven by greater awareness of the threat of climate change and the increasingly favourable economics of renewable energy.
  • Robert Schuwerk, Executive Director, Carbon Tracker Initiative

    Robert Schuwerk, Executive Director, Carbon Tracker Initiative

    June 14, 2021 Via Electronic Mail to [email protected] Secretary Vanessa Countryman U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549 Re: Carbon Tracker Initiative’s response to the Public Input on Climate Change Disclosures Dear Ms. Countryman: Carbon Tracker Initiative (Carbon Tracker) would like to thank the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) for the opportunity to provide comments on its consultation on Climate Change Disclosures. Carbon Tracker is an independent financial think-tank that carries out in-depth analysis on the impact of the energy transition on both capital markets and investments in high-cost, carbon- intensive fossil fuels. For the past decade we have published research on how climate and carbon constraints could materially impact companies in the fossil-fuel intensive sectors of upstream oil and gas, coal mining, and power generation and utilities.1 Carbon Tracker is one of four data providers to the Climate Action 100+ (CA100+) initiative which counts more than $54 trillion in assets under management (AUM) in its membership.2 One of our unique contributions is to have pioneered research on how the energy transition mega-trend is likely to impact individual companies in the sectors we cover.3 We greatly appreciate the Commission’s renewed focus on climate-related risks, including this consultation, as it gathers ideas and information for future actions. Our experience suggests there are no silver bullet solutions, but there are many simple, practical steps the Commission can take to improve market understanding of climate risk and, in doing so, market integrity with respect to those risks.
  • Rmisolutions F a L L 2 0 0 2 SIP

    Rmisolutions F a L L 2 0 0 2 SIP

    Rocky Mountain Institute/volume xviii #3/Fall 2002 RRMMIISSoooolllluuuuttttiioioioonnnnssss newsletter S m all is Pro f it a ble Today’s electricity problems—and costs— are in the grid B y A mory B. Lovins For the first century of electrical power, as Profitable: and Jeremy Heiman generating plants became larger and more The Hidden centralized, delivery of power became Economic lectricity has been so successful more and more dependent on the grid. Benefits of providing the energy needs of citi- Driven by demand that escalated as costs Making Electrical Resources the Right Ezens and industry that many of us declined, the size of power plants grew Size, written by RMI cofounder and CEO can’t imagine life without it. Flip a switch, during the first years of the 20th century. Amory Lovins and six coauthors. Small Is a light comes on. Spin a dial, a fan begins The complexity and size of the grid Profitable builds on the assertion central to whirling. Crank a knob and a pump starts increased at the same time. But by the Lovins’s groundbreaking 1977 work, Soft pushing. Electricity has become a pervasive early 1990s, it was Energy Paths, arguing that energy efficien- and essential force in modern life because clear that utilities cy and cheaper electricity from small, it is a versatile, convenient, controllable, were no longer put- renewable sources of energy will gradually clean-to-use, and generally reliable form of ting many large replace the output of large, centralized fos- energy. Although only about one-sixth of power plants in their sil fuel-powered generating stations and the total energy delivered in the United shopping carts.
  • Stranded Assets: the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy Overview for the Insurance Industry

    Stranded Assets: the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy Overview for the Insurance Industry

    Emerging Risk Report 2017 Innovation Series Society and Security Stranded Assets: the transition to a low carbon economy Overview for the insurance industry 02 About Lloyd’s Acknowledgements Lloyd's is the world's specialist insurance and Lloyd’s of London and the Oxford Smith School would reinsurance market. Under our globally trusted name, like to thank the attendees at the workshop on stranded we act as the market's custodian. Backed by diverse assets that Lloyd’s hosted, the experts who were global capital and excellent financial ratings, Lloyd's interviewed as part of the process, and an independent works with a global network to grow the insured world – group of peer reviewers from the Grantham Institute at building resilience of local communities and Imperial College London. strengthening global economic growth. With expertise earned over centuries, Lloyd's is the Lloyd’s of London Disclaimer foundation of the insurance industry and the future of it. This report has been co-produced by Lloyd's for general Led by expert underwriters and brokers who cover more information purposes only. While care has been taken than 200 territories, the Lloyd’s market develops the in gathering the data and preparing the report Lloyd's essential, complex and critical insurance needed to does not make any representations or warranties as to underwrite human progress. its accuracy or completeness and expressly excludes to the maximum extent permitted by law all those that might otherwise be implied. Key Contacts Trevor Maynard Lloyd's accepts no responsibility or liability for any loss Head of Innovation or damage of any nature occasioned to any person as a [email protected] result of acting or refraining from acting as a result of, or in reliance on, any statement, fact, figure or expression Anna Bordon of opinion or belief contained in this report.
  • Electric Vehicles As Distributed Energy Resources

    Electric Vehicles As Distributed Energy Resources

    ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES BY GARRETT FITZGERALD, CHRIS NELDER, AND JAMES NEWCOMB O Y M UN ARBON K T C C A I O N R I W N E A M STIT U T R R O O AUTHORS & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AUTHORS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Garrett Fitzgerald, Chris Nelder, and James Newcomb The authors thank the following individuals and e-Lab * Authors listed alphabetically. All authors are from member organizations for offering their insights and Rocky Mountain Institute unless otherwise noted. perspectives on this work, which does not necessarily reflect their views. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS Jim Lazar, Regulatory Assistance Project Rich Sedano, Regulatory Assistance Project Riley Allen, Regulatory Assistance Project Sarah Keay-Bright, Regulatory Assistance Project Jim Avery, San Diego Gas & Electric CONTACTS Greg Haddow, San Diego Gas & Electric Chris Nelder ([email protected]) San Diego Gas & Electric Load Analysis Group James Newcomb ([email protected]) Noel Crisostomo, California Public Utilities Commission Jonathan Walker, Rocky Mountain Institute SUGGESTED CITATION Chris Nelder, James Newcomb, and Garrett Fitzgerald, The authors also thank the following additional Electric Vehicles as Distributed Energy Resources individuals and organizations for offering their insights (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2016), and perspectives on this work: http://www.rmi.org/pdf_evs_as_DERs. Joel R. Pointon, JRP Charge Joyce McLaren, National Renewable Energy Laboratory DISCLAIMER e-Lab is a joint collaboration, convened by RMI, with participationfrom stakeholders across the electricity Editorial Director: Cindie Baker industry. e-Lab is not a consensus organization, and Editor: David Labrador the views expressed in this document are not intended Art Director: Romy Purshouse to represent those of any individual e-Lab member or Images courtesy of iStock unless otherwise noted.
  • Key Mitigation Options to Close the 2030 Ambition and Action

    Key Mitigation Options to Close the 2030 Ambition and Action

    CLIMATE CHANGE 27/2020 Background Paper: Key mitigation options to close the global 2030 ambition and action gap Interim report German Environment Agency CLIMATE CHANGE 27/2020 Ressortforschungsplan of the Federal Ministry for the Enviroment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Project No. (FKZ) 3719 41 109 0 - background paper within the project “Accelerated global climate protection until 2030” Report No. FB000380/ZW,ENG Background Paper: Key mitigation options to close the global 2030 ambition and action gap Interim report by Ursula Fuentes Hutfilter Climate Analytics Australia, Perth Marie-Camille Attard, Ryan Wilson, Gaurav Ganti, Claire Fyson Climate Analytics, Berlin Matthias Duwe Ecologic, Berlin Hannes Böttcher Öko-Institut, Berlin On behalf of the German Environment Agency Imprint Publisher German Environment Agency Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Phone: +49 340-2103-0 Fax: +49 340-2103-2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de / umweltbundesamt.de / GermanEnvAgency Report performed by: Climate Analytics Ritterstr. 3 10969 Berlin Germany Report completed in: April 2020 Edited by: Section V 1.1 Climate Protection Hannah Auerochs, Juliane Berger, Eric Fee, Prapti Maharjan Publication as pdf: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen ISSN 1862-4804 Dessau-Roßlau, September 2020 The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s). CLIMATE CHANGE Background Paper: Key mitigation options to close the global 2030 ambition and action gap Interim report Abstract: Background Paper: Key mitigation options to close the global 2030 ambition and action gap to achieve the Paris Agreement Long-term temperature objective Achieving the Paris Agreement Long-term temperature goal (PA LTTG) requires closing the 2030 ambition and action gap between emissions levels consistent with the Paris Agreement and emissions levels projected with current targets and policies.
  • How Big Is the Energy Efficiency Resource?

    How Big Is the Energy Efficiency Resource?

    Environmental Research Letters EDITORIAL • OPEN ACCESS How big is the energy efficiency resource? To cite this article: Amory B Lovins 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 090401 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 147.202.68.137 on 06/05/2019 at 16:06 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 090401 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965 EDITORIAL How big is the energy efficiency resource? OPEN ACCESS Amory B Lovins PUBLISHED Rocky Mountain Institute, 22830 Two Rivers Road, Basalt CO 81621, United States of America 18 September 2018 E-mail: [email protected] Original content from this Keywords: increasing returns, efficiency, climate, integrative design, whole systems, expanding returns work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Abstract Any further distribution of Most economic theorists assume that energy efficiency—the biggest global provider of energy services—is a this work must maintain attribution to the limited and dwindling resource whose price- and policy-driven adoption will inevitably deplete its potential author(s) and the title of and raise its cost. Influenced by that theoretical construct, most traditional analysts and deployers of energy the work, journal citation and DOI. efficiency see and exploit only a modest fraction of the worthwhile efficiency resource, saving less and paying more than they should. Yet empirically, modern energy efficiency is, and shows every sign of durably remaining, an expanding-quantity, declining-cost resource. Its adoption is constrained by major but correctable market failures and increasingly motivated by positive externalities. Most importantly, in both newbuild and retrofit applications, its quantity is severalfold larger and its cost lower than most in the energy and climate communities realize.
  • Energy Efficiency, Taxonomic Overview

    Energy Efficiency, Taxonomic Overview

    Copyright (c) 2004 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rights reserved. Licensed to and first published in: A.B. Lovins, "Energy Efficiency, Taxonomic Overview," Encyclopedia of Energy 2:383-401 (2004), 6 vols., San Diego and Oxford (UK): Elsevier, www.elsevier.com/locate/encycofenergy (hard copy) and www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/012176480X (downloadable). This article is RMI Publication #E04-02 and can be downloaded free from: www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#E04-02 Please note the following updates to the published article: p. 396, col. 2, full para. 2 ("Perhaps..."): The vehicle efficiency stated is from a simulation of on-road performance, obtained by multiplying each vector in the standard EPA test cycles by 1.3. The equivalent EPA adjusted efficiency (the kind used for official efficiency ratings and shown on the window stickers of market vehicles) is 2.06 L-equivalent per 100 km, 48.5 km/L-equivalent, or 114 miles per U.S. gallon-equivalent. Resimulation in 2004 with a gasoline hybrid-electric powertrain as efficient as that of the 2004 Toyota Prius, and conservatively adjusted to all-wheel-drive operation like the fuel-cell version, yields simulated EPA adjusted efficiency of 3.56 L/100 km, 28.1 km/L, or 66 miles per U.S. gallon. p. 397, col. 2, line 5: for 8.6 read 6. p. 401, col. 2, lines 3-6: the Lovins et al. 2002 reference Small Is Profitable can be obtained at least cost via www.smallisprofitable.org. p. 401, col. 2, lines 7-10: the Lovins et al. 2004 reference should read: Lovins, A.B., Datta, E.K., Bustnes, O.-E., Koomey, J.G., & Glasgow, N.
  • Addressing Misalignment on Climate Risk Between Trade Associations and Their Members

    Addressing Misalignment on Climate Risk Between Trade Associations and Their Members

    Addressing misalignment on climate risk between trade associations and their members A. INTRODUCTION The following comment was prepared by Change The Chamber (changethechamber.org), which is a coalition of over 100 student and environmental groups from across the United States. It has been personalized by Muskan Shrivastava, a member of the campaign. Formed in June 2020, it is a volunteer organization of students and young professionals who share the goal of advocating for science-based climate legislation and changing the climate-lobbying of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I am submitting this comment as a voice of the youth in response to Acting Chair, Allison Herren Lee’s, letter “Public Input Welcomed on Climate Change Disclosures.” I am a student attending the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry as an Environmental Studies major. I care about climate change and the vast effects it has on my future. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one part of a larger group of trade associations that lobby against science-based climate policy. At the same time, many of the companies which are members of the U.S. Chamber and its peer trade associations are seriously engaged in mitigating climate risk. There is a serious misalignment. Companies are not required to disclose their membership in, or donations to, trade associations. Investor funds are used to pay these undisclosed donations. Increasingly, as shown by initiatives like CA100+, the investor community is anxious to mitigate climate risk. There is a lack of disclosure around trade association membership creates a lack of key information about how investor funds are being used to oppose public policy measures that would curtail climate risk.